Bunker and tank busters at section/squad and platoon level

[Kiwigrunt]

Those Goose Green guys did not survive by using Milan missiles before taking cover.
They would have benefited a lot by a few good bazookas, though.

They survived by pushing their faces in the dirt and holding their breath. They had Carl Gustav (I assume) but they would have been just out of range and were manned by the very guys with their faces in the dirt. The Milan gave them the relief they needed because is fired from an over-watch position and from a safe distance. And that is where I do agree with you with regards to using battalion level (as opposed to organic) fire support. Had B-coy carried Milan themselves they may not have been able to use them as effectively.

[Kiwigrunt]

What can deliver a bigger yet portable bang than a 40 mm at the squad or platoon level?

1) Rifle grenades come in different shapes and sizes, but I doubt that a 5,56 round can propel a medium warhead (1-2 kg) or even a heavy (3-4 kg) to medium distances (300-400 m). Perhaps still a interesting way to deliver grenades like SIMON or a heavy bunker-busting grenade over a short distance.

An 81 mm mortar fires a 3 to 4 kg warhead. Imagine your shoulder underneath the base plate. So firing something that size from a rifle could only work (perhaps) by using the bullet for the initial launch after which a rocket would have to take over. By then you've got something like an AT4.

2) A light shoulder-fired weapon. A modern LRAC sounds interesting, what about a Panzerfaust III with a reusable tube and a broad spectrum of warheads? The Carl Gustav has been made lighter, but the package is a bit too heavy for a squad.

Pzf 3 weighs up 15 kg depending on the type of round. Carl Gustav M3 is a few kg lighter but can not be fired from an enclosed space. I'd say that giving a Pzf a reusable tube would add to the weight because it's calibre is greater than that of the Carl Gustav. (think RPG)
Firn

P.S: Kiwigrund, I found this bit about the use of the Carl Gustav in Afghanistan. As Schmedlap posted, it depends if the operation is mounted or not.

Thanks for that link. This sounds like a common sense approach.

[Fuchs]

What can deliver a bigger yet portable bang than a 40 mm at the squad or platoon level?

1) Rifle grenades come in different shapes and sizes, but I doubt that a 5,56 round can propel a medium warhead (1-2 kg) or even a heavy (3-4 kg) to medium distances (300-400 m). Perhaps still a interesting way to deliver grenades like SIMON or a heavy bunker-busting grenade over a short distance.

BTW, the 7,62 should be better suited for such tasks, even better should do the 8,6 Lapua Magnum and best the 12,7. However it might be asked much to develop a specific rifle grenade for the "sniper grenadier".

German AT rifles were converted for long-range rifle grenade fire in the midst of WW2.



Rifle grenades can have a sustainer rocket like RPG, but accuracy (or lack thereof) and possibly a rocket smoke trail may rule it out.


M72'sand RPG18's have been heavily used as infantryman's "infantry gun", but a reloadable weapon would be more weight efficient in that calibre group. The French had SARPAC on offer, that was pretty much a reloadable M72.

There's no real market for this today because of the 40mm MV cartridge. That cartridge hasn't the HE power to deal with structures, but it offers similar effect on soft targets without cover.


The USMC "Spike" missile project may be of interest; it combines one pound explosives, more than a mile range and TV lock-on or (night) semi active laser guidance. It's supposedly $ 5,000 a piece.

[Fuchs]

@ Kiwigrunt: Pzf 3 is more like 13 kg and the barrel is already reusable. The rounds are being transported without a full container.
A lighter version is available at 90mm.


I chose to mention the LRAC F-1 for a reason; it looks - despite its age - like a very good firepower/weight compromise.
A weapon weight of 4-5 kg and a munition weight of a bit more than 3 kg seems to be a modern optimum compromise to me. The munition should have its own single-use rear barrel around itself and the weapon should be just barrel+sight+grip. That can be broken down to two very handy packages and there's no wasted container weight. Ammunition could use the Armbrust's marginal firing signature technology or normal tech - even a sustainer rocket could be used. The only fixed thing would be the calibre unless you use some kind of subcalibre design.


Weapons in that weight class are available, but there's no standardization of concepts around the world. This may be an indicator of insufficient experience (no weeding-out of poor concepts) and/or of small differences between the different compromises in use.

[William F. Owen]

The USMC "Spike" missile project may be of interest; it combines one pound explosives, more than a mile range and TV lock-on or (night) semi active laser guidance. It's supposedly $ 5,000 a piece.

There's also Rafael's Mini-Spike developed from recent operational experience. I think I've posted this before, but this is exactly the sort of thing I am talking about.

[baboon6]

In the ‘New rules of war’ thread there are some interesting posts regarding effect vs efficiency, also with regards to economics.

In the ‘UK in Afghanistan’ tread baboon6 and davidbfpo linked this video, where a UK section fires a Javelin at a suspected enemy position thought to hold a single shooter. Note in this video also that the section has two DMs with sniper rifles with one carrying a Javelin and the other has a Minimi (with but stock extended) strapped to his pack as a sidearm. Also it did not look like the GPMG gunner had a number 2, unless it was the DM with the MINIMI. But I digress.

It must be the Dutch and the builder in me that screams ‘waste’ when I see that. From both an economical perspective (which rightly does not concern the trigger pullers who will use what is at their disposal, including CAS), but also from a carried weight perspective. No doubt weapons like Javelin and Spike are unsurpassed against MBTs in a ‘conventional’, like against like war, and also where their extreme range is required. However, in A-stan against AKs, and up to around a range of 500 m, how sensible is this trend towards using what used to be battalion/company level support weapons, at section level? (Will Javelin be the next IW?) Is the range advantage the big issue here and if so, is Javelin indeed often used at section level in excess of 500/600 m?

A historical example that would support the use of the longer-range weapons is Goose Green where B-coy 2-Para was pinned down for several hours in open ground and it required anti-tank platoon’s Milan to get them unstuck. But this was at battalion level.

There are many different unguided weapons available and they are improving in quality and effect, from the lighter M72 up to the heavier Metador and Bunkerfaust. Even the 1948 designed Charlie Guts-ache is still in the running. Australia is purchasing new ones.
Canada also still uses the Carl Gustav. Is there any feedback of its use in A-stan?

It seems that UK and US units at the sharp end of the stick are leaning increasingly towards the use of Javelin, almost exclusively at times. Again, is this mainly because of range advantage or is there more to it? Is there still good reason (other than from an accountants perspective) for retaining the heavier Bunkerfaust/SMAW type weapons or is the super expensive and heavy Javelin/Spike at section level the way of the future?

In the video at least one of the soldiers is carrying an M72A9 and that and the AT4 have been extensively used by UK troops in Afghanistan. A poster on another forum I frequent wrote that the AT4s his unit had received a year or two ago were unreliable with a high percentage of blinds; possibly they were in storage too long. The M72 (always referred to by British soldiers as a "66" after its calibre) is more popular, not least because of its lighter weight. At present it is being issued to British troops in Helmand instead of the AT4. The anti-structure version of the Matador weapon is meant to enter service with the British Army later this year, having been originally ordered as far back as 2006:

http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Should.....-a0168432753

http://www.rafael.co.il/marketing/SI...ILES/5/925.pdf

So they are not exclusively using Javelins...

[Schmedlap]

A poster on another forum I frequent wrote that the AT4s his unit had received a year or two ago were unreliable with a high percentage of blinds; possibly they were in storage too long.

Blinds? Is that a British/Aussie word for dud? Or does that mean the sights were broken off?

[baboon6]

Blinds? Is that a British/Aussie word for dud? Or does that mean the sights were broken off?

It means a dud.

[Tukhachevskii]

There's also Rafael's Mini-Spike developed from recent operational experience. I think I've posted this before, but this is exactly the sort of thing I am talking about.

Given the capabilities of this system (which include providing route and local area reconnaisance for the section) would it be a feasible idea to replace the Minimi SAWs in each section fireteam with something like the above and simply pooling two SF GPMGs (each manned by three man crews) at PLt HQ allied to a lightweight 60mm Commando mortar. With each section fire team also having an MGL-140 40mm multi-shot grenade launcher (for which IMI has also developed a nifty little mini-rpv) or even the HK M25 25mm air-burst rifle for fireteam leaders wouldn't that provide better fire support for the section given that the application of "precision" HE seems to be a better method for "suppression" than simply filling the air with lead (for which dedicated SF GPMGs would be better anyway)? (apologies for treating this like the "Section/Squad weapons thread" but I just had to ask).

[William F. Owen]

..... wouldn't that provide better fire support for the section given that the application of "precision" HE seems to be a better method for "suppression" than simply filling the air with lead (for which dedicated SF GPMGs would be better anyway)? (apologies for treating this like the "Section/Squad weapons thread" but I just had to ask).

You're kind of in the zone of one of my real-life debates here. My contention is HE is what kills, while bullets tend to suppress - so someone who is suppressed, cannot be killed by bullets -while suppressed- but can be killed by HE. All very obvious but it sometimes needs saying.

[jcustis]

The Mini-Spike looks like it holds promise, as of course all precision guided systems do. Setup time, weight, and time of flight are always the killers.

After a workup involving considerable amount of AT-4, M72, and MK-153 use on static ranges and LFAM exercises, I've seen a poor engagement rate within our unit, due to a number of factors, the least of which is terrbile range estimation. Try hitting a target at or near max range and on rolling terrain vice a pool table, and I've seen our gunners perform really poorly. I was conversing with a Marine captain yesterday at one of the LFAM attack ranges here at 29 Palms, and he said the current average of hits across all infantry battalions running through training and conducting platoon and company-level attacks is at a pretty dismal percentage that I won't actually go into in depth with. I will say, however, that the number was shocking.

What shocked me was the fact that the infantry trains pretty damn hard during our workups, and have access to a variety of training systems to facilitate virtual and live simulation, so we should not be so jacked up. Granted, we are talking about engagine tire stacks and vehicle hulks, so success via proximate impacts in Afghanistan may be much higher, but the fact remains that free flight rocketry at the limit of engagement range is a tough task to accomplish, even though it can be trained to.

SMAW takes a long time to get into action, relative to M72 and AT-4, and it really requires a degree of exposure that the other rockets don't require. There is the SMAW-D, which the Corps decided to pass on, and which provides HE capability which the AT-4 does not, but the issue remains one of precision. So...going back to the original question from our Kiwi, it would seem that the pressure to carry and employ Javelin might in fact come simply from the issue that it is a PGM, vice a free-flight system.

[J Wolfsberger]

What is the added capability that you get from a Javelin that you cannot get from a few extra rounds of 40mm HE or an AT-4 (other than added range and a bit more precision)?

Killing tanks. At longer ranges, and with more certainty.

Having said that, the leader in the story Kiwi wrote to start this thread, used a Javelin, I suspect, because he had it, and using it let him clear the sniper without risking any of his men. 40mm or an AT-4 would have been much more appropriate to the job, but it sounds like he didn't have those.

(Or, in keeping with other observations, he wanted to get rid of the awkward heavy thing once he had a good excuse to do so. )

[baboon6]

Killing tanks. At longer ranges, and with more certainty.

Having said that, the leader in the story Kiwi wrote to start this thread, used a Javelin, I suspect, because he had it, and using it let him clear the sniper without risking any of his men. 40mm or an AT-4 would have been much more appropriate to the job, but it sounds like he didn't have those.

(Or, in keeping with other observations, he wanted to get rid of the awkward heavy thing once he had a good excuse to do so. )

The section commander himself had a 40mm UGL on his SA80 and he did use it during the action that was filmed; as I wrote above at least one man had an M72 but I don't know if it was used or not, it's not show in the footage. The section also had fire support from 40mm GMGs at one stage.

[SethB]

If range estimation is an issue then why not issue a small laser rangefinder?

[jcustis]

If range estimation is an issue then why not issue a small laser rangefinder?

It might not even need a rangfinder attached. In the USMC squad structure, there should be a dude running about with a AN/PSQ-18 attached to his M203, and that dude should be giving the rocket gunner an ADDRAC with a computed range solution.

We don't do it in practice because we just don't freaking think about it, and in fact I only thought of the above once you asked the obvious question. Looks like I know what I'll be chatting with our Gunner about over dinner tonight!...rocket battle drill.

[Kiwigrunt]

If range estimation is an issue then why not issue a small laser rangefinder?

That would indeed appear to be the immediate simple solution. They are cheap, light and compact.
I also wonder why more advanced sights are not used more widely. They have been around for a while now and include night capability, range finding and can be matched to the munitions so that the cross hair automatically adjusts. Most light disposable AT weapons now have scope rails on them so it should not need to be that hard. These sights are meant to turn dumb weapons into half intelligent.
Photo’s show one on a Carl Gustav and IMI Shipon with its own.

(That Mini-Spike looks great. Wait till they come up with thermobaric heads...)

[SethB]

The reason that I first thought of the LRF was when I was considering Wilf's point about a .338 in the PLT.

An LRF takes a lot of the voodoo out of distance shooting. A BORS from Barret takes even more mystery out. Then it's just point and click to 1500M.

I'm not against using equipment to solve training issues. It's an American favorite.

[Ken White]

Until they go inoperative or you run out of batteries. Then what...

[Firn]

That would indeed appear to be the immediate simple solution. They are cheap, light and compact.

I also wonder why more advanced sights are not used more widely. They have been around for a while now and include night capability, range finding and can be matched to the munitions so that the cross hair automatically adjusts. Most light disposable AT weapons now have scope rails on them so it should not need to be that hard. These sights are meant to turn dumb weapons into half intelligent.

(That Mini-Spike looks great. Wait till they come up with thermobaric heads...)

The Dutch Marine Corps seems to use already DYNARANGE on their Panzerfaust 3. I wonder if the smaller warheads (60mm and 90mm) will get soon fielded and if a reusable rear container is possible with this specific design.

A weapon weight of 4-5 kg and a munition weight of a bit more than 3 kg seems to be a modern optimum compromise to me. The munition should have its own single-use rear barrel around itself and the weapon should be just barrel+sight+grip. That can be broken down to two very handy packages and there's no wasted container weight. Ammunition could use the Armbrust's marginal firing signature technology or normal tech - even a sustainer rocket could be used. The only fixed thing would be the calibre unless you use some kind of subcalibre design.

A wide array of warheads is of course a clear plus, and the Matador has a lot of them. But the subcalibre design allows your soldiers to train on one system and adapt it with a wider range of warheads-weights and thus targets, from modern MBTs, heavy bunkers to lightly fortified positions.

In consequence, the improved PzF 3-T replaced the original model in the late 1990s, introducing a dual hollow charge "tandem" warhead to defeat Explosive Reactive Armour. This means that the spike projecting from the warhead itself also contains an explosive charge to set off the reactive armour and free the path to the real armour for the main warhead. The latest incarnation of the Panzerfaust 3, the PzF 3-IT-600, can be fired from ranges up to 600 meters thanks to an advanced computer-assisted sighting and targeting mechanism.

As of 2005, there were two additional models in the development or testing stage, both relying on smaller and therefore lighter warheads. Those were the RGW (Rückstoßfreie Granatwaffe, Recoilless Grenade Weapon - which would make it just like the original in name and operation.) in calibers 60 and 90 millimeters. Both new weapons are expected to help facilitate the transition in German military doctrine from preparation for major tank battles to urban and low-level warfare.

Let us see how those new RGW work out...

Until they go inoperative or you run out of batteries. Then what...

The you use the simply the next LRF/FCS in your section/platoon

It might not even need a rangfinder attached. In the USMC squad structure, there should be a dude running about with a AN/PSQ-18 attached to his M203, and that dude should be giving the rocket gunner an ADDRAC with a computed range solution.

Jokes aside, even though I upped my range estimation skills thanks to hunting in our mountains, I'm still rather bad at range estimation, especially when you have to guess up and down steep slopes. A decent scope helps a lot, but a LRF makes things just sooo easy.




Firn

[Kiwigrunt]

Until they go inoperative or you run out of batteries. Then what...

Then that individual may have to rely on a buddy with the same gismo. At the weight of a single 40 mm round you could easily have a few of these in a section, or for a little more weight this one has a built in inclinometer. Or else he/she is back to square one, which, if jcustis’ post 31 is anything to go by, isn’t much of an alternative.

I agree with you that good training and the individual’s ability to master these skills without the gadgets is preferable, but it just doesn’t seem to be happening (enough). So would it not be better to swallow our pride and break the status quo by allowing today’s technology to help us out?

How long did it take for optics to become common on almost all rifles before we dropped that silly ‘we should simply be able to use open sights because optics may fail’ attitude (read Arthur Schopenhauer’s quote below). Sure they may fail, but so what? Rifles may fail too, so let’s go back to swords.

I’m not suggesting that we drop training without the gadgets, not at all. Map reading and use of compass for instance should (and I hope is) still be taught and trained along side the use of GPS, but while GPS is available and it works, and its accuracy is required, use it.
In fact, a LRF can aid in training range estimation because you can check your guesses immediately. I do that with hunting and that is sometimes a good thing.

I’ll admit that over-reliance on gadgets will almost certainly blunten the ‘naked’ skills, and minimising that is/will be a challenge, but I think that using that as a justification to not use these tools does us a disservice, especially where the use of these tools increases effect measurably.

How many AT4s and other such weapons, and perhaps lives, could potentially be saved (money, carried weight and exposure through unnecessary firing signature) by increasing first hit capability through issuing these simple LRFs? Bean counters may even be happy to hand them out as disposable items.

Alternatively, issue the heavier and better military specific LRFs to team/section leaders so they can give accurate fire control orders for all weapons in their teams including 40 mm and machine guns. But for that to work effectively we may have to go back to some form of normality with regards to the number and variety of support weapons carried.